Guy sues fast food restaurants for making him fat and unhealthy

[Typo_Negative]

*Originally posted by the grim spectre of red death *
**Hamadryad, I’ve already addressed the Mclean Burger. Here it is again, from page 2.

Road Rash: You are partially correct, sir. The McLean burger did not sell. But the reason it did not sell is emphatically not because it was an inferior product. In fact, as I’ve already shown, it was superior to regular burgers in every way, including taste

Taa daa! **

How could you possibly demonstrate that it’s taste was superior??? You do know that taste is a largley subjective measure? That what tastes good to you might not taste good to me? Some folks like broccoli. I find it vile and nausiating.

And ya know what? I had me one of them McLean burgers. AND IT SUCKED. I did not like, and it was the last that I ever purchased. So what you have demonstrated has been your opinion, which counts as much as any other, and not fact.

I went to McDonalds the other day. Had a couple of sausage biscuits. And you know what? I feel fine! I was not harmed in any way! Imagine that. But then again, I ate in reasonable moderation. I guess that’s the key, huh? maybe they should put warnings up:** “products should only be consumed in reasonable moderation”.**

No, fuck that. I don’t want to live in a country that caters to morons, idiots and weasels. I want to live in a free country, where I can get a greasy-ass Big Mac if I want one. A country where I will be responsible for the girth if I should happen to eat one at every meal.

There are places that serve the ‘healthy’ fare you want to force McDonalds to serve. And my friend, you are free to go and eat there to your heart’s content. But the government should not require us to eat there. It should each persons choice.

Anyone who sues a fastfood company for making them fat is a fucking liar, and should be ashamed of him/herself. Such a person is loathsome. If I ever meet one, I will tell him so. Blaming others for what you did is as low as it gets. And THAT is what we are talking about here.

[Tars_Tarkas]

He probably means it did better in taste tests. I bet the Arch Delux did as well, and that creation is roasting in the hell it deserves as well. I’m not about to try to find those statistics, as i can barely get Yahoo to show up on search engines. As for the rest of your (spooje) post, i agree.

And BTW, i can vouch that Rex wasn’t eating much fast food this past week, but maybe he is now, since he got paid.

[Fred]

How could you possibly demonstrate that it’s taste was superior??? You do know that taste is a largley subjective measure? That what tastes good to you might not taste good to me? Some folks like broccoli. I find it vile and nausiating.

And ya know what? I had me one of them McLean burgers. AND IT SUCKED. I did not like, and it was the last that I ever purchased. So what you have demonstrated has been your opinion, which counts as much as any other, and not fact.

Actually, it’s not my opinion at all. I’ve never even had a McLean burger. But I find your assertation regarding “Taste is subjective so no definitive statement can ever be made regarding the relative worth of food products,” um, bizarre. I’m sure there’s someone out there who likes the taste of dog shit. But I feel confident saying Rice Krispies taste better than dog shit, even though tast is subjective. I know how much you hate disclaimers – are you going to force me to explain that by tastes better I mean that the majority of people in a blind taste test prefer the taste? Because I can, if you want. But maybe you want to live in a country where I don’t have to do something so patently rediculous.

Speaking of that, perhaps you also want to live in a country in which you can decide whether or not to wear a seat belt, and be responsible for the consequences thereof. A country in which you can not wear a helmet on a motorcycle, and be responsible for the consequences. A country in which you can abuse whatever substances you want, and be responsible for the consequences. A free country. I hope you find this country, and when you do, send me a postcard.

By the by, you never cleared up your contradictory statements. Again, did I misinterpret you?

[Hamadryad]

I still just don’t understand why fast food restaurants should be ethically bound to serve nutritious food, any more than clothing stores should be ethically bound to stock clothes in larger sizes, or bars should be ethically bound to serve health shakes. I agree that it would be awfully nice if all of these places did these things, as it would be more convenient to shop, eat out, and go to bars if they did…but as alternatives are readily available I don’t know how it’s an ethical issue.

You want an ETHICAL issue? Adults can choose what and when they eat. School children are getting pizza and soda for lunch every damned day, and the administrators don’t want to remove the soda machines because they bring in so much desperately needed money. My kid is being whored out to sell wrapping paper every year because the schools can’t afford supplies - hell, I have to PROVIDE his supplies. (Why, I believe this is the topic for another thread.)

You want to argue an ethical dietary issue? Talk about school cafeterias. McBurgerWendyFriedSilver’s menus are not issues of ethics.

[Typo_Negative]

*Originally posted by the grim spectre of red death *
**-- are you going to force me to explain that by tastes better I mean that the majority of people in a blind taste test prefer the taste? **

Correction. The majority of those who participated in the test. Which may not be such a large sample. I often wonder just who participates in these tests. And even if they, in a taste test enviroment say “yeah, that’s a lot better”, doesn’t mean they will buy the thing when it’s put on the menu.

Speaking of that, perhaps you also want to live in a country in which you can decide whether or not to wear a seat belt, and be responsible for the consequences thereof.

Can you be thrown to the pavement at 60 MPH from eating a Big Mac? No? Then it’s not a great analogy. But since you ask. Yes, I think seat belts should be optional. I wear them. But if somebody wants to disregard them, they should be able to, and pay the consequences

** A country in which you can not wear a helmet on a motorcycle, and be responsible for the consequences. A country in which you can abuse whatever substances you want, and be responsible for the consequences.**

You’re darn tooting! What a great fucking place this would be. A much better place. Freedom, and no whiney ass maggots claiming to ‘victims’ when they are, in fact, idiots who should have known better.

I made no contradictory staements. You haven’t shown that the food is harmful. And you know what? Cesar barbar isn’t going to ba able to show it either!! Ya know why? Because fast food from the big 4 isn’t all that he’s abusing. Listen to his argument. “They damaged me by making the food so enticing”!
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You want to make fast food joints responsible for this asshole’s health. I want to make this asshole responsible for his decisions that he made with his own freewill.

If you eat at a fastfood joint every now and then, and eat sensibly, you’ll be OK.

[Typo_Negative]

Christ, I previewd and still made mistakes.

I suck.

[artemis]

*Originally posted by Hamadryad *
**You want an ETHICAL issue? Adults can choose what and when they eat. School children are getting pizza and soda for lunch every damned day, and the administrators don’t want to remove the soda machines because they bring in so much desperately needed money. My kid is being whored out to sell wrapping paper every year because the schools can’t afford supplies - hell, I have to PROVIDE his supplies. (Why, I believe this is the topic for another thread.)

You want to argue an ethical dietary issue? Talk about school cafeterias. McBurgerWendyFriedSilver’s menus are not issues of ethics. **

Exactly! People develop thier food prefernces early in life - so why are schools ENCOURAGING the consumption of a poor diet by serving fast-food type meals in the school cafeteria? If people grow up eating more balanced meals, they don’t find greasy fast food nearly as appealing, and are far less likely to consume it to excess.

I find this lawsuit ridiculous - but believe that attempts to keep fast food franchises out of schools is a laudible one. Of course, that requires that adults be willing to pony up enough money so the cafeteria can prepare nutritious meals that the children will actually EAT… For a society that supposedly ‘cares about kids’, we do a lousy job of showing it!

I also have no problems with the idea of restricting or eliminating fast food advertising directed at minors, for the same reasons that we don’t allow cigarette companies or brewers to advertise to them (although they are free to advertise to adults). Keep kids from developing a taste for the stuff, and most of the problems are solved.

[Typo_Negative]

I will agree that the fast food should NOT be in the school cafeteria.

[Hamadryad]

“Keep kids from developing a taste for the stuff, and most of the problems are solved.”

Unfortunately this requires parents to actually take some responsibility for their kids…and as fewer adults are willing to take responsibility for THEMSELVES, the kids are going downhill too.

From this week’s “Newsweek”:

“What changes have you made?” booms Ludwig, as a 226-pound 10-year-old squeezes into his small examining room. The boy proudly describes how he’s stopped eating cookies and slowed down on chips since his last visit.

Why were his parents (or guardians, if that is the case) letting him eat all of these cookies and chips? My kids are stuck with carrots for a snack right now. They may bitch and whine and complain, but because I am their parent and not their buddy, I’m going to make sure they have healthy food.

In my decidedly less-than-humble opinion, this lawsuit is not remotely about a fast food joint’s responsibility to change the food they sell; it’s about alleged adults who don’t want to take responsibility for their own irresponsible behavior.

I’m in the process of weaning myself off of fatty foods. I’m making myself eat carrots or spinach when I’m munchy. I want to make cookies and brownies and cupcakes. I want to take the easy way out and make microwaved buttery popcorn all the time…but because I understand that as an adult it is my responsibility to take care of my health, I am doing it.

And yeah, I have unhealthy habits - I smoke, for instance - but I’m not immature and irresponsible enough to think that it’s 7-11’s fault for selling me the cigarettes, or Philip Morris’s fault for making them, and I don’t think either of them has an ethical responsibility to stop.

[ralph124c]

Just as with cigarettes, we will tax fast food-the tax shall be levied according to the caloric content of the item-say $5.00 for a BIg Mac, and $2.20 for a small order of fries. The money will go into the general fund, and shared out (stolen) among the states, upon the basis of population, with at least 33% going to the courageous lawyers who are valiantly protecting us from our own stupidity!
I can forsee many benefits to this approach-we will have all kinds of money to spend on anti-fast food commercials, educational programs, etc. Besides, the lawyers need to make an honest living!What with law school SO expensive, they need a way to recoup their investment!
Welcome to 21st century America-its as if the inmates are running the looney bin!:eek:

[Typo_Negative]

Nope. it still supposes that it’s somebody else’s responsibilty.

No taxes, no lawsuits, dammit.

[JohnBckWLD]

In 1991, a judge (i.e. a politcally connected lawyer)filed suit in the Bronx after claiming to have been injured after driving through a pothole in Manhattan. A Bronx jury awarded him $1.7 million.

The way I see it, Babar & Letchowitz are headed for big-time payday. They’ll both be dining at the 21 Club and will never have to eat another Quarter-Pounders or Big Mac. If a Judge can steal a $1,700,000 windfall what are 2 heart attacks worth? Gotta be at least $6,000,000.

[RexDart]

*Originally posted by the grim spectre of red death *
**

Rex pretty much abandoned his bizarre statement that it would ruin the “low cost” benifit of fast food lunch, and didn’t really come up with another reason. I’m curious as to where you are coming from on this.

**

I by no means abandoned it. Perhaps you have an hour for your lunch break. Perhaps you’re willing to spend 30 minutes of that hour in commute, so that you can go to your home and enjoy a low-cost meal. If not, then you’re stuck with restaurants. As that goes, McDonald’s is low-cost. You can get a filling meal for $4 at McDonald’s, and in 5 minutes of your life. So you can spend the otehr 55 minutes hanging out, listening to The Radio Factor, Limbaugh, or The Dan Patrick Show, whichever you prefer. In the field of lunchtime meals, McDonald’s is clearly a low-cost meal option.

Have you ever spent $10 at the “flare” restaurants for a burger and fries and coke? Well, “goodbye, Ruby Tuesday”, they cost me double digit dollars for lunch and took most of it away while I waited. McDonald’s is an excellent low-cost option. Yes, I can make 2 meals out of 49 cents in spaghetti and $1.50 in Ragu, but I can’t make the time magically appear in which to go home for it. If you are so inclined to limit yourself to brown-baggin’ it, then enjoy your daily ham/roastbeef/turkey.

**
By the way, I thought your bit about an average joe being able to open a fast food restaurant that can effectively compete with the likes of McDonald’s and Burger King was pretty funny. Unless you were serious, in which case your optimism is admirable, to say the least. **

referring to Tars Tarkas

Oh, I’m sorry, I guess I just pictured those restaurants in my head. They must have been a frickin’ mirage. Somebody better tell the guys who own the Maid-Rite in Brookfield that they don’t exist. I guess that Cheese-Rite (loose-meat sandwich with cheese) I ordered was a figment of my imagination. I bet they’ll find the philosophical works of Goodman, Derrida, and Putnam quite interesting as a starting point.

Lunchers are the big take for fast food. It’s a fact. They aren’t on the web yet, AFAIK, but years of demographical studies in the food service industry have demonstrated this time and again. My father is a senior advertising executive specializing in the food industry, I myself worked for a summer in that aspect of the advertising enterprise.

Lunchers want food quick and cheap. Anybody can provide that. Name recognition is a lower factor. Quick cheap burger places like Rally’s and Backyard Burger have gotten good lunchtime market penetration with their no-dine-in very-fast-food restaurants. The market will determine how this issue plays out. If a company comes along marketing their equally speedy burgers, but 96% instead of 73%, at 40 cents (American) more, then we’ll all find out won’t we? You don’t expect someone to open up such a business as a public service do you? You realize they have to make some money to pay back the loan they took out to start the business, right? Nobody owes you a 96% lean burger, if you want it you can pay for it. Otherwise, stay the heck out of my business when I choose to buy a 73% burger from a relatively inexpensive lunchtime restaurant.

[Fred]

I made no contradictory staements. You haven’t shown that the food is harmful. And you know what? Cesar barbar isn’t going to ba able to show it either!! Ya know why? Because fast food from the big 4 isn’t all that he’s abusing. Listen to his argument. “They damaged me by making the food so enticing”!

spooje, I’ve posted quite a lot in this thread, so it’s more than understandable that you’ve missed a few things I’ve said. This entire paragraph, for example, has been answered before it was even posted – like time travel! Here’s where I pointed out your contradictory statements, and asked for clarification:

spooje, this statement by you:

quote:

What prevents them [from controlling whether irresponsible use of their product causes harm]? Nothing.

---

is in direct contradiction to this one, also by you:
quote:

The fast food joints have no control over that [whether the irresponsible use of their product causes harm]

---

Perhaps I’m misinterpreting you. Which statement is the one you believe?

and here is where I talked about my opinion of Mr. Barbar

I wish to state that I’m not particularly wedded to this suit in particular. In fact, if you’ll notice, I’ve never said one word in support of it. I believe the idea that Mr. Barbar was somehow bamboozled into believing fast food is healthy is very silly indeed. I’m looking, instead, at the fast food industry as a whole. And, under strictly Libertarian principles, I don’t have a leg to stand on. However, it’s not a libertarian country. We do, in fact, have drug laws, seat belt regulations, and other governmental actions that exist to protect people from their own irresponsible behavior. The fast food industry shouldn’t be exempt from these regulations.

I addressed this statement:

And even if they, in a taste test enviroment say “yeah, that’s a lot better”, doesn’t mean they will buy the thing when it’s put on the menu.

here:

The McLean burger did not sell. But the reason it did not sell is emphatically not because it was an inferior product. In fact, as I’ve already shown, it was superior to regular burgers in every way, including taste. The quality of a product doesn’t translate into sales: the marketing does.

I realize it’s hard work to keep up with all the posts I’ve made, and I fully understand the fact that you missed these points. But other than that, I’m afraid you and I are simply going to have to disagree. Apparently, our disagreement doesn’t stem from different perspectives on this particular situation, but rather from different perspectives on the world in general. You obviously wish you lived in a more Libertarian country. I don’t. If we are to debate on anything, it should be on this, much larger issue; as it stands, our disagreement over the fast food industry is merely symptomic of differing political opinions, and, as such, we will never be able to see eye to eye on the issue.

Hamadryad, as with spooje, I believe that what we have here is a much larger difference of opinion. My belief is that it is unethical for a company to profit off the deaths of millions, no matter what the industry. You do not. Again, the fast food issue is merely one part of a much larger disagreement, and as such, I’ll not waste any more time debating it with you.

ralph124c: The whole “inane hyperbolic exageration – with exclamation points!!!” has been done. Twice. This is a fast moving message board, man. You gotta move quickly, or else you’ll always be third in line. It also helps have an original thought.

[Fred]

*Originally posted by RexDart *

I by no means abandoned it. Perhaps you have an hour for your lunch break. Perhaps you’re willing to spend 30 minutes of that hour in commute, so that you can go to your home and enjoy a low-cost meal. If not, then you’re stuck with restaurants. As that goes, McDonald’s is low-cost. You can get a filling meal for $4 at McDonald’s, and in 5 minutes of your life. So you can spend the otehr 55 minutes hanging out, listening to The Radio Factor, Limbaugh, or The Dan Patrick Show, whichever you prefer. ** In the field of lunchtime meals**, McDonald’s is clearly a low-cost meal option.

Bolding my own. I’ll say it one more time: bizarre. First of all, you’re talking two different things: speed, and money. I never debated that fast food wasn’t fast, so we’re down to one. Of course fast food is a low cost option in a hypothetical world where restaurants are the only places where food exists. It would have been the polite thing to do to let me know that you were referring to this magical world filled with unicorns and where brown bagged lunch is the work of science fiction way back when we started debating this topic.

I feel it’s important to bring up the fact that your theory on cost had two important points:

Point Number A: Fast Food is a low cost alternative.
Point Number B: The increase in burger price of 40 cents would bankrupt the fast food industry because fast food would no longer be the low cost alternative (Your exact words were “they would no longer retain the market position of being the low-cost lunch option that they presently are for most of us”).

I’m willing to concede that in a hypothetical restaurant only world, fast food is a low cost option. However, I’m checking on the calculator, and $4 plus $0.40 is still less than “double digit dollars for lunch” at a flare place; plus, it’s faster! Geez, Rex, maybe I should step out of the way and let you do battle with your own position?

“If you are so inclined to limit yourself to brown-baggin’ it, then enjoy your daily ham/roastbeef/turkey.”

Most people searching for a low cost option do have to limit themselves to brown baggin’ it. As someone who has alledgedly been on a tight budget, I would have thought this would have been obvious to you.

Finally, according to you, people searching for a low cost restaurant option are limited to fast food places. I hate to tell you this, but that’s supposed to be the position of fast food lawsuit proponents, not opponents.

[Fred]

Oh, for the love of Pete! I forgot your completely absurd independent restaurant statement!

Oh, I’m sorry, I guess I just pictured those restaurants in my head. They must have been a frickin’ mirage. Somebody better tell the guys who own the Maid-Rite in Brookfield that they don’t exist. I guess that Cheese-Rite (loose-meat sandwich with cheese) I ordered was a figment of my imagination. I bet they’ll find the philosophical works of Goodman, Derrida, and Putnam quite interesting as a starting point.

You mean the Maid-Rite franchise that spans the MidWest? The Maid-Rite franchise that was founded 76 years ago? Oh, yeah, that’s an excellent example of how I could create a successful burger joint that could compete with the Big Chains. After all, if Maid-Rite could fight off the The Terminator (you remember, the one McDonald’s sent back in time to kill the franchise before it could get off the ground – the first McDonald’s wouldn’t be founded for another 20 years), surely I can too!

I’m sure there are examples of fast food stores that aren’t McDonald’s somewhere… you just picked the shittiest example imaginable, outside of “Burger King”.

[D_Odds]

*Originally posted by the grim spectre of red death *
I believe that what we have here is a much larger difference of opinion. My belief is that it is unethical for a company to profit off the deaths of millions, no matter what the industry. You do not. Again, the fast food issue is merely one part of a much larger disagreement, and as such, I’ll not waste any more time debating it with you.

Fred, as I hope we’re still on typing terms, I’d like to say that this just doesn’t register with me either. Either that or all cars must go, and let’s not even mention motorcycles. Of course, guns are right out (not that I’d complain). What next - kitchen knives and baseball bats? Oh, and don’t forget to launch a cruise missile at the Hershey factory.

Even given the poor nutrition profile of fast food, they are not killing anybody. Looking at the nutritional data (sorry I didn’t link it before, but it’s at www.mcdonalds.com somewhere), a full-grown adult with a moderate activity level and otherwise healthy diet could eat a Big Mac daily with no ill effects. Fast food alone, just like a gun, does not kill anybody; rather it is a complex combination of lifestyle factors in which fast food plays a part (with the gun, the lifestyle factor is the ability to point it at another human being and pull the trigger). Calling their business unethical is like calling Leatherface’s chainsaw salesman evil for selling to his best customer. Fast food can’t quiz their patrons’ health profiles to know who is safe and who isn’t. It’s not their place to say, “Please present your notarized cholesterol card before I serve you.”

Lastly, I’d like to re-refer to this:

We do, in fact, have drug laws, seat belt regulations, and other governmental actions that exist to protect people from their own irresponsible behavior. The fast food industry shouldn’t be exempt from these regulations.

Yet people still do drugs, drive recklessly, etc. McDonalds and Burger King post nutritional information and the FDA food pyramid and people still gorge. And again, they are not exempt from safety regulations to insure that their food genuinely doesn’t kill anybody.

Oops, I know I said lastly above, but Fred could you post a link to the study you quoted back on page one (I’m pretty sure I didn’t see one). Thanks. As I said, personal experience and the opinion of professional chefs contradicts the findings. Besides, if selling leaner burgers might give one of the three an edge based on flavor (such as McD’s has w/ their fries), don’t you think one of them would have jumped all over it?

Rex, you left out the option of brown-bagging it. I know not everyone works where there is a fridge and microwave available, but it’s a much cheaper, more viable option for any who do. Also, I found a healthier meal at Blimpies or Subways to be as quick and as cheap and more satisfying. To each his own.

(P.S. grim on preview, I see you are back on the leaner burger argument. I think that’s the weakest argument you’ve made, but to each his own. Note above, I agree with the brown-bag option)

[RexDart]

grim spectre, my position is merely that the fast-food joints are the low-cost alternative for lunchtime dining. Yes indeed, I’ve brownbagged it many a time. (Though consider that the cost savings isn’t all that much…one can only make about 5 lunch-sized sandwiches from a pound of sliced deli meat, so that’s about $1 per sandwich…not far off from the Wendy’s Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger at 99 cents.) That was fortunate for me, since there was a refrigerator in the break room. Not always the case I assure you.

You can extrapolate whatever or however you wish. My argument is only that the fast-food chains are in direct competition with the sit-in joints (or the pricier joints with a drive-thru option like Fazoli’s) for the lunchtime dollars. If McDonald’s were to decide tomorrow to switch to 96% lean ground beef and raise their prices 40 cents per 1/4 lb burger, do you think the public would welcome such an arrangement? Do you think people would just pay the extra 40 cents, or would they go elsewhere? I suspect many people would disagree with the move. People would say, “Well, the old burger was fine by me, why couldn’t they just keep that on the menu and offer the leaner beef for extra?”

As for the McLean, I thought that was a veggie burger, am I mistaken? The only time I tasted a veggie burger was by accident, at a cookout. I didn’t know it was a veggie burger, bit into it, and thought “Oh my god, this burger is aboslutely awful, something is definitely wrong here.” I had to spit the contents of my mouth into the garbage can in front of several people, it was that bad.

[Fred]

Hold the presses!

Does McDonald’s really claim that someone can eat a Big Mac meal a day with no ill effect? Because if so, this lawsuit has been handed a giant gift.

Calling their business unethical is like calling Leatherface’s chainsaw salesman evil for selling to his best customer.

Um, yes, it is. If chainsaw manufacturers were making serious profit by selling their product as a murder weapon, to the extent that the chainsaw industry actively encouraged using chainsaws to murder people, I sure as hell would have an ethical problem.

But perhaps chainsaws aren’t the best example.

Yet people still do drugs, drive recklessly, etc.

Surely you aren’t suggesting that the fact the people break the law is an argument against that law? The fact that a law doesn’t prevent all instances of a behaviour means the law is worthless? Hell, people still murder, steal, etc. but you’d hardly argue for those laws to be repealed.

The article quoted in my first post can be found here

[Bryan_Ekers]

I have a solution, too.

Give the fat lazy clown a settlement placed in trust, then tattoo the phrase “ADULT RESPONSIBILITY ABDICATED”, or ARA, on his forehead. From that moment on, he will be protected from entering into any form of contract, including purchases over $1. He obviously can’t handle the responsibility of adulthood, so he should be placed into a subclass of citizens that must be proteced from themselves and others; a perpetual childhood, as it were.

When encountering an ARA, one must be kind and polite, while understanding that the ARA has no opinions of significance and should be viewed with a mix of tolerance and forebearance. After all, they don’t understand what they are doing or saying and that causes have effects.

Poor, poor people.